Suppose a person shot at somebody, missed, and instead killed a passer-by. Are they guilty of murder, or manslaughter and attempted murder?

<font color=skyblue>I would guess it as two separate charges. Attempted murder on the first guy and manslaughter of the second. There was a question similar to this in my Law class I had last sememster, but I am not in the mood to research it. But I bet I am at least close...</font>

Both, and a bonus for public insanity.

[ 10-22-2004, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: johnny ]

If all are civilians, then both.

If the one shooting is a soldier in combat, neither. Well, actually murder. But he/she won't be tried.

[ 10-22-2004, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Dadams1 ]

There was a case like that in Lakeland FL just a few months back. A guy tried to rob a store (photography shop?) and the owner chased him outside & saw him trying to get into a van. The owner fired a gun at the robber, missed & hit the driver, killing her. The investigation discovered the van driver had nothing to do with it -- the robber was trying to carjack a getaway vehicle. I believe the owner was charged with manslaughter, but was either acquitted or the charges were dropped.

Ziroc, can you remember any more about this?

EDIT: Found an article about it here:
http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.d...73187669558968

The clerk was shot in the head, then after the robber left he grabbed a gun & chased the guy. The van driver was hit twice, but lived. No charges were filed against the clerk.

[ 10-22-2004, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: VulcanRider ]

Manslaughter and attempted murder, I would think.

Basically speaking, a person must be proved to have intention to kill the victim and to have done the action. Since there was no intention to kill the innocent bystander, both elements of the murder offence cannot be proved.

However, in the Canadian Criminal Code, a person can be found guilty of murder if they attacked with intention to kill but killed someone other than their intended target.

It's a discretionary charge, though. A circumstance as you just described wouldn't necessarily be charged as murder; manslaughter might be more appropriate (kind of like negligence causing death). The section in the CCC (iirc) was put in there to hold gangs accountable for the killing of bystanders in turf wars.

Agree with everyone else, both attempted murder and manslaughter, the levels of which depending on many circumstances re who was killed, details on events leading up to the shooting, the shooting itself, the defendant's motives and nature, etc.etc.etc.

Manslaughter and attempted murder. Since you tried to kill the first passerby it was pre meditated thus attempted murder, but since you actually killed the second passerby it would be manslaughter since there was no motive.

Can we expect to hear from you again in about 60 years?

Textbook legal answer: murder.

Two rules apply here.
1. Transferred intent. Even though they did not intend to kill the passerby, the intentional act of trying to kill the target gets transferred to fulfill the intent element of murder.

2. The merger doctrine, which means that when multiple crimes apply to the same act, they merge into the most severe crime. So, since the act is getting charged with murder, the lesser crime of attempted murder merges into the charge.

Thank you, I'll be here all week.

You're just so f***ing good, TL.

I wish I had a lawyer to tell me this stuff whenever I wanted to know ...